tag:theconversation.com,2011:/uk/topics/google-play-26929/articlesGoogle Play – The Conversation2020-08-20T04:21:45Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1447282020-08-20T04:21:45Z2020-08-20T04:21:45ZApple, Google and Fortnite’s stoush is a classic case of how far big tech will go to retain power<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/353765/original/file-20200820-18-zko22e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=98%2C58%2C2896%2C1935&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>There has been a clash of clans in mobile gaming, with angry birds Apple, Google and Epic Games in a saga over in-app payments. </p>
<p>Video game developer Epic’s massively popular “<a href="https://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/history-of-battle-royale-games/">battle royale</a>” game Fortnite was <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21366438/apple-fortnite-ios-app-store-violations-epic-payments">removed</a> from Apple’s App Store and the Google Play Store last week.</p>
<p>Android players can still download the game directly via the Epic Games mobile app, but for Apple iOS users the decision means no new downloads. Currently installed versions of the game will still work, but iOS players will be unable to update the game and participate in the next season of Fortnite, beginning on August 27. </p>
<p>The boot from Apple and Google was in response to Epic’s implementation of a direct in-app payment system, designed to circumvent Apple’s and Google’s own payment systems and their <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/3/21206400/apple-tax-amazon-tv-prime-30-percent-developers">30% fee</a> charged on <a href="https://www.apple.com/ios/app-store/principles-practices/">in-app purchases and app sales</a>. Epic’s move is a clear violation of Apple’s <a href="https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/">rules</a> for app monetisation. </p>
<h2>Epic taking charge</h2>
<p>Following Apple’s and Google’s removal of Fortnite from their app stores, <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21367963/epic-fortnite-legal-complaint-apple-ios-app-store-removal-injunctive-relief">Epic filed</a> an antitrust lawsuit against Apple in Californian courts, followed by another <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-53777379">against Google</a>.</p>
<p>The game develoepr also launched the hashtag <a href="https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/freefortnite">#FreeFortnite</a> and aired an in-game parody of Apple’s <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtvjbmoDx-I">famous “1984” ad</a> which, at the time it was released, was Apple’s own response to IBM’s dominance of the computing industry.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VtvjbmoDx-I?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Apple’s iconic 1984 ad launching its Macintosh computers.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The parody renders the ad in Fortnite’s graphical style, but retains its original symbolism of oppression and control. Epic, valued at <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2020/06/16/epic-games-now-worth-more-than-twice-as-much-as-major-league-soccer/#faa5129202a7">US$17 billion</a>, is attempting to portray itself as Apple did back in 1984: as an underdog facing down a corporate behemoth. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/euiSHuaw6Q4?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Epic Games’s parody ad appropriated the 1984 Apple commercial, aired on television during the Super Bowl.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What’s at stake in this show of platform power?</h2>
<p>The fight escalated this week, with Apple <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/17/21372480/apple-epic-threat-developer-tools-agreement-unreal-engine-fortnite">threatening to terminate</a> Epic’s enrolment in the Apple Developer Program should it not resolve its breach of Apple’s policy.</p>
<p>Membership in the program is required for creating and distributing iOS software. Losing its enrolment wouldn’t just affect Epic, or Fortnite, but potentially anyone using Epic’s widely adopted <a href="https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/">Unreal Engine</a> game development technology. </p>
<p>Considering there are more than a billion users of Android and iOS based mobile devices, these punitive responses (particularly from Apple) are being characterised by many as anti-competitive and monopolistic, including by Epic’s chief executive Tim Sweeney. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1288139641984606209"}"></div></p>
<p>In the past, other companies such as <a href="https://variety.com/2020/digital/news/apple-app-store-eu-antitrust-probes-spotify-1234636728/">Spotify</a>, <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com.au/microsoft-calls-out-apple-xbox-game-pass-roadblock-2020-8?r=US&IR=T">Microsoft</a> and <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/3/21206400/apple-tax-amazon-tv-prime-30-percent-developers">Amazon</a> have also protested Apple’s 30% fee and strict control over the App Store. But none has so brazenly attacked Apple in the public sphere. </p>
<p>Apple’s and Google’s response to this saga has highlighted the power of big tech platforms. As in the case of app stores, these platforms are enclosed and tightly regulated systems. You must play by the owner’s rules, or you’re expelled. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/apple-arcade-and-google-stadia-aim-to-offer-frictionless-gaming-if-your-nbn-plan-can-handle-it-123359">Apple Arcade and Google Stadia aim to offer frictionless gaming, if your NBN plan can handle it</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In this case, Apple and Google know their app stores – where millions of users download their apps – are crucial to the financial success of developers on their platform. </p>
<p>As such they can exert their power over developers, who don’t really have anywhere else to go.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/353767/original/file-20200820-22-lwimi7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A gamer plays Fortnite on a PC" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/353767/original/file-20200820-22-lwimi7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/353767/original/file-20200820-22-lwimi7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=371&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/353767/original/file-20200820-22-lwimi7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=371&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/353767/original/file-20200820-22-lwimi7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=371&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/353767/original/file-20200820-22-lwimi7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=467&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/353767/original/file-20200820-22-lwimi7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=467&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/353767/original/file-20200820-22-lwimi7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=467&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">According to Fortnite’s Twitter account, more than 12 million concurrent players got online for an event earlier this year.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Reminiscent of antitrust charges <a href="https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/microsoft-antitrust.asp">against Microsoft in the 1990s</a>, critics of Apple and Google have described the tech behemoths as anti-competitive monopolies charging an unreasonable 30% transaction fee. </p>
<p>This falls to 15% in the case of subscription-based apps but only after an initial year of Apple charging the 30% fee. For perspective, PayPal only charges <a href="https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/apple-complaint-734589783.pdf">2.9%</a> of the value of each transaction.</p>
<h2>What does Epic want?</h2>
<p>Epic argues the mobile games market should be more like the PC market. For instance, Microsoft and Apple don’t get to charge a percentage on every transaction we make through our computers just because they developed the operating system.</p>
<p>Given <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/18/21373875/epic-games-fortnite-apple-google-ban-playbook-in-game-events">the speed with which Epic responded</a> to Apple’s ban, it appears Epic anticipated it and was prepared for this outcome. </p>
<p>Is Epic’s lawsuit ultimately aiming to renegotiate the percentage of app store cuts?</p>
<p>Maybe Epic believes it’s in a strong enough position to push back against Apple and Google, given Fortnite’s <a href="https://www.gamesradar.com/au/how-many-people-play-fortnite/">massive popularity</a> and revenues, as well as the uptake of and value created by software using the Unreal Engine. </p>
<p>Or perhaps, given Apple’s previous <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/6/21357771/apple-cloud-gaming-microsoft-xcloud-google-stadia-ios-app-store-guidelines-violations">pre-emptive bans</a> of Google Stadia and Microsoft xCloud, Epic believes Apple has overplayed its hand. </p>
<p>The mobile games industry is a massive source of revenue for app store operators. Perhaps Epic is banking on Apple and Google eventually deciding gaming is too lucrative to cast aside, and hoping they will succumb to renegotiating fees.</p>
<h2>Epic will probably be fine</h2>
<p>Epic claims, in the long run, it’s doing this for everyone.</p>
<p>If it can force Apple to reduce the 30% fee, or launch an alternative game store on iOS with lower fees, developers will have to sell fewer game copies to make a profit. According to Epic, this means more games for everyone.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1294076353965428736"}"></div></p>
<p>But it’s also an opportunity for Epic to amplify its platform power by more aggressively expanding its games store into the mobile marketplace.</p>
<p>Regardless of what happens now, don’t feel too sorry for Epic. It’s one of the world’s most profitable video game developers and a <a href="https://www.epicgames.com/store/en-US/">platform owner</a> in its own right (although at 12% it takes a <a href="https://www.epicgames.com/store/en-US/about#:%7E:text=There%20is%20no%20catch%3B%20the,and%20makes%20us%20a%20profit.">smaller app store cut</a> than Apple). </p>
<p>While Android players can still access Fortnite, only iOS players who already have the game installed will be able to keep playing. Alternatively, they may have to shell out <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com.au/iphones-with-fortnite-selling-on-ebay-for-thousands-2020-8?r=US&IR=T">thousands</a> for a secondhand iPhone with Fortnite installed. </p>
<p>And whether or not iOS players will experience much of the upcoming season – that will be determined by Epic’s next move.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/time-well-spent-not-wasted-video-games-are-boosting-well-being-during-the-coronavirus-lockdown-135642">Time well spent, not wasted: video games are boosting well-being during the coronavirus lockdown</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/144728/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Fortnite developer Epic Games deployed its own in-app payment system to circumvent a 30% transaction fee taken by Apple and Google. Fortnite got the boot, and multiple lawsuits ensued.Ben Egliston, Postdoctoral research fellow, Digital Media Research Centre, Queensland University of TechnologyKyle Moore, Sessional Academic in the Department of Media and Communications, University of SydneyMarcus Carter, Senior Lecturer in Digital Cultures, SOAR Fellow., University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1022942018-08-30T13:56:38Z2018-08-30T13:56:38ZFortnite is setting a dangerous security trend<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/234061/original/file-20180829-195322-1vw0od5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/san-francisco-ca-usa-august-2018-1159820950?src=9cA5iMzKjwOrSbMg2PDOTg-1-30">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Cybercriminals have just been given yet another route to get malicious software (malware) onto your personal mobile devices. The hugely popular video game Fortnite has become one of the first major apps to bypass official app stores and encourage users to download its software directly. </p>
<p>In doing so, it’s also bypassing the security protections of the app stores and chipping away at a system that has worked reasonably well at keeping malware off people’s phones and tablets. And we’re already starting to see the dangerous results of this, as Fortnite’s installation method created a <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2018/08/25/fortnite-app-allowed-hackers-secretly-install-anything-android/">security vulnerability</a> that may have opened up some users’ devices to hacking.</p>
<p>Fortnite’s maker, Epic Games, shocked the industry when it announced at the start of August that it would release the app <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/games/2018/aug/06/fortnite-is-coming-to-android-phones-but-not-through-google-play">directly to consumers</a> instead of through the official Google Play store (although it’s still available through Apple’s App Store). The firm said this was to create a direct relationship with customers instead of depending on middlemen distributors. Google <a href="https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/112622?hl=en-GB">takes 30%</a> of the money paid for any app or in-app purchase in the Play store.</p>
<p>This goes even further than the likes of Netflix, which recently confirmed it was <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2018/08/21/netflix-itunes-2/">testing a bypass of Apple’s iTunes billing</a> system in 33 markets worldwide. This meant that some subscribers would be unable to pay using iTunes and instead would have to complete payments via Netflix’s website, reducing their engagement with the official Apple store.</p>
<p><a href="https://sensortower.com/blog/app-revenue-and-downloads-1h-2018">Current estimates</a> suggest that in the first half of 2018, users of the Apple App Store and the Google Play Store spent a combined US$34.4 billion on mobile apps and games. These official stores still represent the first port-of-call for millions of mobile users, and in return <a href="https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/USEC2012-Conundrum.pdf">they have come to expect</a> trustworthy, vetted, malware-free, high-quality apps.</p>
<p>The issue with attempts to bypass official stores is that they contradict <a href="https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/guidance/protecting-your-organisation-malware">recommended security best practice</a>. Engaging with these stores is highly endorsed because of the added protection they offer. Apple, for instance, has <a href="https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/">a set of detailed guidelines</a> that app submissions are checked against. Similarly, Google has a series of <a href="https://source.android.com/security/reports/Android_WhitePaper_Final_02092016.pdf">automated and manual techniques</a> to vet apps.</p>
<p>Directing users away from these stores means less protection. And even worse, it stands to encourage a wider behaviour change. It sends the message to users that official app stores are no longer the primary trusted way to engage with apps.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/234060/original/file-20180829-195322-5raaup.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/234060/original/file-20180829-195322-5raaup.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/234060/original/file-20180829-195322-5raaup.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/234060/original/file-20180829-195322-5raaup.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/234060/original/file-20180829-195322-5raaup.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/234060/original/file-20180829-195322-5raaup.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/234060/original/file-20180829-195322-5raaup.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Bypassing official app stores is a risky game.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/melbourne-australia-may-23-2016-closeup-424829353?src=W5YMty38eGU1V13XXlzdHw-1-18">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><a href="https://blog.trendmicro.com/update-mobile-threats-on-the-rise/">Industry research</a> has validated the importance of this advice time and time again, by revealing that third-party app sources – particularly on the Android platform – are often plagued with malware and can expose users and their data to a <a href="https://www.wandera.com/reddrop-malware/">variety of security and privacy risks</a>. According to the 2018 Symantec <a href="https://www.symantec.com/content/dam/symantec/docs/reports/istr-23-2018-en.pdf">Threat Report</a>, the vast majority (99.9%) of discovered mobile malware was found in third-party app stores. This <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/google-play-store-malware/">doesn’t mean</a> that official stores are free from malware but they do have the advantage of another set of specialists checking apps for potential problems.</p>
<p>As such, direct downloads create a substantially greater security risk. A perfect example of this was revealed recently when <a href="https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/112630336">Google discovered</a> <a href="https://www.androidcentral.com/epic-games-first-fortnite-installer-allowed-hackers-download-install-silently">a severe security vulnerability</a> in the Fortnite installation process. This essentially made it possible for malicious apps to download and install anything on a user’s device without their permission – a cyber-security nightmare. Although Epic Games has since released a fix, it is very likely that <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2018/08/24/fortnites-android-installer-shipped-with-an-epic-security-flaw/">many users have yet to install it</a>, which means they may still be vulnerable.</p>
<h2>Eroding good habits</h2>
<p>A more long-term impact of the shift to direct downloads and engagement is the potential erosion of best security practice. For years, <a href="https://www.sans.org/security-awareness-training/ouch-newsletter/2017/securely-using-mobile-apps">security awareness campaigns</a> <a href="https://www.wired.com/2016/12/never-ever-ever-download-android-apps-outside-google-play/">and guidance</a> have emphasised the importance of sourcing apps only from official stores. This has been a difficult (yet crucial) task as security awareness campaigns <a href="https://kar.kent.ac.uk/67511/1/csss2015_bada_et_al.pdf">are hard to get right</a>, actually changing people’s behaviour <a href="https://www.nspw.org/papers/2008/nspw2008-beautement.pdf">is even harder</a>, and attackers are constantly updating <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13673-016-0065-2">their tricks</a>.</p>
<p>Encouraging or redirecting users away from traditional channels may well undo some of these ingrained secure habits. For example, the Fortnite installation process requires gamers <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2018/08/24/fortnites-android-installer-shipped-with-an-epic-security-flaw/">to enable installations</a> <a href="https://www.grahamcluley.com/android-security-fortnite/">from unknown apps</a>. But doing so puts users at higher risk. A user would need to navigate to this setting later to disable third-party installations as it does not reset automatically.</p>
<p>If more large app developers bypass the official stores in this way, it will almost certainly have an impact on people’s broader behaviours. This could result in the belief that trusted sources of apps are no longer necessary and that disabling protective security measures isn’t a problem. What’s more, it could create a higher temptation to look to third-party app stores for new apps or better deals – app channels that are, as mentioned, unfortunately <a href="https://www.trendmicro.com/vinfo/us/security/news/cybercrime-and-digital-threats/red-alert-2-0-android-trojan-spreads-via-third-party-app-stores">infested with malware</a>.</p>
<p>The ultimate result of these actions will be further malware infections and a higher compromise in privacy and security. Ordinary users will pay the costs of app developers’ desire to avoid the regulations and fees of the official stores.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/102294/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jason R.C. Nurse does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A serious security threat was found in popular video game Fortnite’s installation method after it bypassed Google’s official app store.Jason R.C. Nurse, Assistant Professor in Cyber Security, University of KentLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1002832018-07-23T13:22:38Z2018-07-23T13:22:38ZBoth EU and US want to protect competition – so why do they disagree about Google’s €4.32 billion fine?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/228826/original/file-20180723-189319-1ox5oat.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=94%2C44%2C2661%2C1795&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/london-january-2018-google-headquarters-offices-792044194?src=Jb-8JYx0athLtiZ7b_prCQ-1-5">Shutterstock.</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The European Commission has fined Google €4.34 billion for breaching <strong>EU</strong> antitrust rules – the <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/56ae8282-89d7-11e8-b18d-0181731a0340">highest ever fine</a> imposed in the <strong>EU</strong>. The case concerned a part of EU competition law that prohibits a <strong>business</strong> from strengthening its dominance in the market through certain <strong>business</strong> practices. </p>
<p>US President Donald Trump was quick to object to the fine, following on from an earlier interview with CBS, where he <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/19/donald-trump-eu-google-fine">called the EU</a> “a foe”. But both EU and US antitrust laws are put in place to foster competition in the market – so why is the fine such a flash point? </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1019932691339399168"}"></div></p>
<p>The first thing to note is that EU law does not prohibit a business from being dominant. The goal of any business is to maximise its profits, and most of the time, a business is successful because consumers buy its products or services. But it is illegal, under EU law, for a company to abuse its dominant position in the market. </p>
<p>This means that a business arrangement may be lawful when a company is not in a dominant position, but unlawful when a company is in a dominant position. Android OS – owned by Google – accounts for 80% of the market share of mobile operating systems in Europe. Since Apple iOS is not available for licensing, other mobile phone manufacturers have little choice but rely on Android – a fact which Google used to promote its own apps. </p>
<p>Google’s business strategy was to strengthen the dominance of its search engine and browser (Google Search and Google Chrome), by putting certain restrictions on the use of Android OS. The <a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm">commission ruled</a> that Google broke the law by forcing smartphone manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and Google Chrome, as a condition of licensing the Google Play Store on their devices. </p>
<p>This is called “tying”: where a business uses its dominance in one product or service (Android) to gain or consolidate the dominance of its other products (Google Search and Chrome). If Google was not dominant in the software for mobile operating system, tying would be lawful. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/228823/original/file-20180723-189341-1oszkqd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/228823/original/file-20180723-189341-1oszkqd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/228823/original/file-20180723-189341-1oszkqd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/228823/original/file-20180723-189341-1oszkqd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/228823/original/file-20180723-189341-1oszkqd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/228823/original/file-20180723-189341-1oszkqd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/228823/original/file-20180723-189341-1oszkqd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Smartphone operating systems: the issue in hand.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/chiang-mai-thailand-june-262018-man-1120981547?src=OyYpuFbr2JqdfVAARRSGyg-2-66">Shutterstock.</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The company also paid some manufacturers and network operators for pre-installing Google Search on their devices, but not other search engines, and made it impossible for manufacturers to sell devices running on alternative versions of Android, which were not approved by Google.</p>
<h2>Not just a value judgement</h2>
<p>Defining which practices are abusive is no easy task, because most of the time it doesn’t depend on the nature of a business deal. Behind the enforcement of the antitrust laws, there is an idea of how the market economy should operate as well as complex factual assessments of the effects of the business practice under investigation. This does not mean that ethical preferences trump any economic considerations. Rather, market regulation reflects intertwined views on values, economic knowledge, social and political factors. </p>
<p>The US takes a minimalist approach when it comes to enforcing the law against “monopolisation” (broadly speaking, this corresponds to the EU’s prohibition of abuse of dominant position). In the US, courts, agencies and scholars have often interpreted the law in a way which results in limited enforcement. </p>
<p>The argument for the US approach goes like this: markets have a tendency to self-correct, whereas public intervention – such as antitrust enforcement – is counterproductive. Most of the time, a business is dominant because it is efficient. So, constraining its economic power creates inefficiencies, and sends the wrong message to businesses that want to enter the market or create new products. </p>
<p>The EU takes a different approach for historical, political and economic reasons. It places a “special responsibility” on dominant companies not to distort competition. And it holds that a dominant company has the right to compete as long as it does so on merit, by offering products and services that consumers value, rather than putting in place business practices designed to exclude competitors. </p>
<h2>Same aim, different means</h2>
<p>From the European Commission’s perspective, pre-installing Google Search and Chrome created a <em>de facto status quo</em>, which made it difficult for rival search engines to offer their apps – and ultimately served as a disincentive to innovate. So, rather than being a political decision against US businesses – as Trump seems to think – the EU’s fine against Google is also an attempt to protect competition. </p>
<p>At the heart of the issue are two different approaches to protecting competition. Put simply, the US approach is to only enforce antitrust laws when consumers pay more as a result of collusive or abusive practices. But the EU has a more sophisticated answer: to prevent consumers from paying more, but also to create an economic environment where businesses have a chance to compete. </p>
<p>Rather than having a monopolised market and then waiting for new entrants to challenge the dominant player, the EU prefers to enforce its laws to create a balance between the dominant business and existing competitors, while also encouraging new entrants to compete on the market. Consumers, the thinking goes, then benefit from both lower prices and wider choices.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/100283/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Carlo Petrucci does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>US President Donald Trump thinks the fine is political – but it’s just a different way of doing business.Carlo Petrucci, Lecturer in Law, University of EssexLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/950302018-04-27T10:44:32Z2018-04-27T10:44:32ZThe internet is designed for corporations, not people<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/216545/original/file-20180426-175035-vyoh03.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Conversations on Facebook ethics are part of a bigger conversation about information architecture.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Alastair Grant</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Urban spaces are often <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/06/how-cities-use-design-to-drive-homeless-people-away/373067/">designed</a> to be subtly hostile to certain uses. Think about, for example, the seat partitions on bus terminal benches that make it harder for the homeless to sleep there or the decorative leaves on railings in front of office buildings and on university campuses that serve to make skateboarding dangerous. </p>
<p>Scholars call this <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/06/how-cities-use-design-to-drive-homeless-people-away/373067/">“hostile urban architecture.”</a> </p>
<p>When a few weeks ago, news broke that <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/technology/mark-zuckerberg-testify-congress.html">Facebook shared millions of users’ private information</a> with Cambridge Analytica, which then used it for political purposes, I saw the parallels. </p>
<p>As a <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ZiL1i4kAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">scholar</a> of the social and political implications of technology, I would argue the internet is designed to be hostile to the people who use it. I call it a “hostile information architecture.” </p>
<h2>The depth of the privacy problem</h2>
<p>Let’s start with Facebook and privacy. Sites like Facebook <a href="https://theconversation.com/fragmented-us-privacy-rules-leave-large-data-loopholes-for-facebook-and-others-94606">supposedly protect user privacy</a> with a practice called “notice and consent.” This practice is the business model of the internet. Sites fund their “free” services by <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/26/opinions/data-company-spying-opinion-schneier/index.html">collecting information</a> about users and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/opinion/facebook-cambridge-analytica.html">selling that information</a> to others. </p>
<p>Of course, these sites present privacy policies to users to notify them how their information will be used. They ask users to “click here to accept” them. The problem is that these policies are <a href="https://theconversation.com/nobody-reads-privacy-policies-heres-how-to-fix-that-81932">nearly impossible to understand</a>. As a result, no one knows what they have consented to. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/216550/original/file-20180426-175047-oc20oj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/216550/original/file-20180426-175047-oc20oj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/216550/original/file-20180426-175047-oc20oj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/216550/original/file-20180426-175047-oc20oj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/216550/original/file-20180426-175047-oc20oj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/216550/original/file-20180426-175047-oc20oj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/216550/original/file-20180426-175047-oc20oj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Users are also unable to protect themselves, as opting out of sites like Facebook and Google isn’t viable for most.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/privacy-settings-web-page-computer-screen-308763962?src=2f2sgR6d21LV5AkGj81wMQ-1-57">David M G/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But that’s not all. The problem runs deeper than that. Legal scholar <a href="https://its.law.nyu.edu/facultyprofiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=profile.overview&personid=28509">Katherine Strandburg</a> has <a href="https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol2013/iss1/5/">pointed out</a> that the entire metaphor of a market where consumers trade privacy for services is deeply flawed. It is advertisers, not users, who are Facebook’s real customers. Users have no idea what they are “paying” and have no possible way of knowing the value of their information. Users are also unable to protect themselves, as opting out of sites like Facebook and Google isn’t viable for most. </p>
<p>As I have <a href="https://ssrn.com/abstract=2533057">argued in an academic journal</a>, the main thing notice and consent does is subtly communicate to users the idea that their privacy is a commodity that they trade for services. It certainly does not protect their privacy. It also hurts innocent people. </p>
<p>It’s not just that most of those whose data made it to Cambridge Analytica did not consent to that transfer, but it’s also the case that Facebook has vast troves of data even on those who <a href="https://www.aclu.org/blog/privacy-technology/internet-privacy/facebook-tracking-me-even-though-im-not-facebook">refuse to use</a> its services. </p>
<p>Not unrelated, news broke recently that thousands of Google Play apps – probably illegally – <a href="http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/DigitalEducation/2018/04/android_mobile_apps_track_children_study.html">track children</a>. We can expect stories like this to surface again and again. The truth is there is too much money in personal information. </p>
<h2>Facebook’s hostile information architecture</h2>
<p>Facebook’s privacy problem is both a symptom of its hostile information architecture and an excellent example of it. </p>
<p>Several years ago, two of my colleagues, <a href="http://www.celinelatulipe.com/">Celine Latulipe</a> and <a href="https://webpages.uncc.edu/richter/">Heather Lipford</a> and I published <a href="https://ssrn.com/abstract=1427546">an article</a> in which we argued that many of Facebook’s privacy issues were problems of design. </p>
<p>Our argument was that these design elements violated ordinary people’s expectations of how information about them would travel. For example, Facebook allowed apps to collect information on users’ friends (this is why the Cambridge Analytica problem impacted so many people). But no one who signed up for, say, tennis lessons would think that the tennis club should have access to personal information about their friends. </p>
<p>The details have changed since then, but they aren’t better. Facebook still makes it very hard for you to control how much data it gets about you. Everything about the Facebook experience is very carefully curated. Users who don’t like it have little choice, as the site has a virtual monopoly on social networking. </p>
<h2>The internet’s hostile architecture</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.lessig.org/about/">Lawrence Lessig</a>, one of the leading legal scholars of the internet, <a href="http://codev2.cc/">wrote a pioneering book</a> that discussed the similarities between architecture in physical space and things like interfaces online. Both can regulate what you do in a place, as anyone who has tried to access content behind a “paywall” immediately understands.</p>
<p>In the present context, the idea that the internet is at least somewhat of a public space where one can meet friends, listen to music, go shopping, and get news is a complete myth. </p>
<p>Unless you make money by trafficking in user data, internet architecture is hostile from top to bottom. That the business model of companies like Facebook is based on targeted advertising is only part of the story. Here are some other examples of how the internet is designed by and for companies, not the public.</p>
<p>Consider first that the internet in the U.S. isn’t actually, in any legal sense, a public space. The hardware is all owned by telecom companies, and they have <a href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/isp-lobby-has-already-won-limits-on-public-broadband-in-20-states/">successfully lobbied</a> 20 state legislatures to ban efforts by cities to build out public broadband. </p>
<p>The Federal Trade Commission has recently declared its intention to undo Obama-era <a href="http://theconversation.com/understanding-net-neutrality-10-essential-reads-71848">net neutrality</a> rules. The rollback, which treats the internet as a <a href="http://ssrn.com/abstract=2117497">vehicle for delivering paid content</a>, would allow ISPs like the telecom companies to deliver their own content, or paid content, faster than (or instead of) everyone else’s. So advertising could come faster, and your blog about free speech could take a very long time to load. </p>
<p>Copyright law gives sites like YouTube very strong legal incentives to <a href="https://ssrn.com/abstract=1577785">unilaterally and automatically, without user consent, take down</a> material that someone says is infringing, and very few incentives to restore it, even if it is legitimate. These takedown provisions include content that would be protected free speech in other contexts; both President Barack Obama and Senator John McCain campaigns had material removed from their YouTube channels in the weeks prior to the 2008 elections. </p>
<p>Federal requirements that content-filtering software is installed in public libraries that receive federal funding <a href="https://ssrn.com/abstract=1288090">regulate</a> the only internet the poor can access. These privately produced programs are designed to block access to pornography, but they tend to sweep up other material, particularly if it is about LGBTQ+ issues. Worse, the companies that make these programs are under no obligation to disclose how or what their software blocks.</p>
<p>In short, the internet has enough seat dividers and decorative leaves to be a hostile architecture. This time, though, it’s a hostile information architecture.</p>
<h2>A broader conversation</h2>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/216553/original/file-20180426-175074-k4z9d8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/216553/original/file-20180426-175074-k4z9d8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=370&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/216553/original/file-20180426-175074-k4z9d8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=370&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/216553/original/file-20180426-175074-k4z9d8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=370&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/216553/original/file-20180426-175074-k4z9d8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/216553/original/file-20180426-175074-k4z9d8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/216553/original/file-20180426-175074-k4z9d8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">What should be included in today’s conversations about Facebook?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>So let’s do have a conversation about Facebook. But let’s make that part of a bigger conversation about information architecture, and how much of it should be ceded to corporate interests. </p>
<p>As the celebrated urban theorist and activist <a href="https://www.pps.org/article/jjacobs-2">Jane Jacobs</a> <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Death_and_Life_of_Great_American_Cit.html?id=P_bPTgOoBYkC">famously wrote</a>, the best public spaces involve lots of side streets and unplanned interactions. Our current information architecture, like our heavily surveilled urban architecture, is going in the opposite direction.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/95030/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gordon Hull does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>An expert explains how Facebook’s privacy issues are linked to a bigger problem – a ‘hostile information architecture,’ largely controlled by corporate interests.Gordon Hull, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Director of Center for Professional and Applied Ethics, University of North Carolina – CharlotteLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/794852017-06-22T06:34:12Z2017-06-22T06:34:12ZExplainer: how malware gets inside your apps<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175086/original/file-20170622-30205-1nzqzt1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Why is malware getting into your apps? For money, of course.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/kazan-russia-april-11-2017-set-621349628">Stanislaw Mikulski/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Malicious software on popular mobile platforms such as iOS and Android is at best a nuisance and at worst a security threat to individuals and businesses. </p>
<p>Known as malware, some perpetrators use it to infect apps and get inside your smartphone. Why do they do it? Money, mostly. </p>
<p>The recent <a href="http://blog.checkpoint.com/2017/05/25/judy-malware-possibly-largest-malware-campaign-found-google-play/">Judy malware</a>, for example, was reportedly found in 41 apps in the Google Play store. It seems to have made money for its creators by repeatedly auto-clicking on advertisements. <a href="http://www.csd.uoc.gr/%7Ehy558/papers/mal_apps.pdf">Other mechanisms</a> for mobile malware monetisation include covert sending of premium rate SMS messages, financial fraud and credential theft.</p>
<p>With millions of apps out there, it’s a growing problem.</p>
<h2>Pervasiveness of mobile app malware</h2>
<p>It’s difficult to get a firm idea of the size of the malware problem when it comes to apps.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.syssec-project.eu/m/page-media/3/andrubis_badgers2014.pdf">A study</a> conducted as part of a project called ANDRUBIS, published in 2014, examined one million Android applications. These were gathered directly from the Google Play app marketplace, as well as from unofficial marketplaces and services offering pirated apps. </p>
<p>The study found 1.6% of apps sampled from Google Play to be malicious in nature at the time, but other studies have shown different ratios. There is a lack of comprehensive data available concerning malware on the Apple App Store, although there are some <a href="https://www.theiphonewiki.com/wiki/Malware_for_iOS">known</a> <a href="http://bgr.com/2015/09/24/iphone-apps-xcodeghost-malware/">examples</a>.</p>
<h2>How apps get infected</h2>
<p>The most obvious way malware makes its way into marketplaces is through developers intentionally releasing malicious apps. However, this avenue of attack requires a developer who is willing to produce an application, market it, gain a following and then activate the hostile routines within the application. </p>
<p>It is far more common for malware to be inserted into already existing applications. There are a number of different mechanisms through which criminals achieve this feat:</p>
<ul>
<li><p><strong>Application republishing:</strong> Apps are automatically downloaded, infected with malware, then republished to app stores, both <a href="http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2435378">official and unofficial</a>. Attackers making use of this strategy may publish under the original app name or one that is slightly different. An example of republishing malware was seen recently with the <a href="http://blog.trendmicro.com/trendlabs-security-intelligence/dresscode-android-malware-finds-successor-milkydoor/">MilkyDoor malware</a>, which allows attackers to bypass firewalls.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>Malvertising:</strong> Advertisers provide packages of code to allow developers to incorporate ads into their apps. There have been instances in which attackers have managed to purchase advertisements <a href="https://www.fireeye.com/content/dam/fireeye-www/global/en/current-threats/pdfs/fireeye-sidewinder-targeted-attack.pdf">that perform malicious actions</a> through an otherwise benign app. An example of this was the <a href="https://securelist.com/disassembling-a-mobile-trojan-attack/76286/">Svpeng malware</a>, which was installed via Google AdSense ads targeting Google Chrome for Android users in Russia. The users did not have to click the ad – simply opening a page and <a href="https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/over-318-000-android-users-affected-by-auto-downloading-malvertising-attack/">displaying the ad</a> was enough.</p></li>
</ul>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rFcxpDW_dC4?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Malware attacks App Store, Apple pulls infected apps.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<ul>
<li><p><strong>Application acquisition:</strong> Some developers may wish to sell their apps outright. There is potential for the new owners to release malicious updates that will be automatically installed. While there are no documented cases of this occurring on mobile platforms, developers of <a href="https://www.labnol.org/internet/sold-chrome-extension/28377/">browser extensions</a> <a href="https://arstechnica.com/security/2014/01/malware-vendors-buy-chrome-extensions-to-send-adware-filled-updates/">have spoken out</a> <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1vjj51/i_am_one_of_the_developers_of_a_popular_chrome/">about this issue</a>. In some cases, it is possible to purchase applications with hundreds of thousands of users for a few hundred dollars. </p></li>
<li><p><strong>Infected development tools:</strong> In <a href="https://www.trendmicro.com/vinfo/us/security/news/mobile-safety/malware-laced-xcode-tool-used-to-infect-ios-apps">one (documented) case</a>, it was reported that infected app development tools were being distributed to app authors. A version of XCode, the primary tool used by iOS developers, would insert malicious functionality into applications that it built and prepared for distribution. Apple <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-china-malware-idUSKCN0RK0ZB20150920#tt">told Reuters</a> at the time it was working with the developers to ensure “they’re using the proper version of Xcode to rebuild their apps”.</p></li>
</ul>
<h2>How malware evades safeguards</h2>
<p>Of course, the maintainers of official app marketplaces like Apple and Google have an interest in keeping malware off their platforms. </p>
<p>There are a number of schemes aimed at addressing this: Apple has its app <a href="https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/">review process</a>, and Google has recently launched its <a href="https://www.android.com/play-protect/">Play Protect feature</a>. Among other programs, these efforts make use of a mix of automated and manual examination of apps in an effort to determine whether they are safe or not.</p>
<p>Malware authors attempt to defeat these processes by concealing the true functionality of their code. There are many ways in which this is accomplished: an attacker may have the application download the hostile portion of the code at a later date after installation, rely on time delays or instruct apps to wait for an external signal <a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-24018-3_12">before launching</a> their malicious payload. </p>
<p>In fact, similar approaches <a href="https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/24/uber_cloaked_its_spying_but_apple_gave_it_a_wrist_slap/">were reportedly used by Uber developers</a> to show a different version of their app to Apple’s engineers, based on their location.</p>
<h2>What are the solutions?</h2>
<p>Unfortunately, there isn’t a single solution to these issues. </p>
<p>End users can ensure they only install applications from reputable developers, app marketplaces can continue to improve detection mechanisms and operating system developers can continue to improve security.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, malware authors will not be far behind in improving their strategies and devising new ways to compromise devices.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/79485/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Hannay works for Edith Cowan University. He is affiliated with WAHCKon Heavy Industries Pty. Ltd.</span></em></p>It’s not safe out there for an app.Peter Hannay, Lecturer in Digital Forensics and Cyber Security, Edith Cowan UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/772352017-05-24T06:29:25Z2017-05-24T06:29:25ZSorry everyone: on the internet, you’re always the product<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/170500/original/file-20170523-8930-gylwmj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Both paid and unpaid apps can track your data. The apps pictured may not - but it's hard to know which do and which don't.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/blakespot/3030107334/in/photolist-5BL6kU-5BFPqt-fjEW79-aJpw1r-9dyLV5-8DbZLX-7htGuR-9drKbj-7NE8Tp-7NJ7i7-9GE78o-7NE9sc-7NMq1m-szqHTb-8JaLoS-7NMpch-eUjEws-5sn96z-7NJ9vE-7NE8Zn-p4KxNq-aJxDRZ-5BpnGU-dQRLvb-h4rhH9-ovdNf1-aJpvWB-oAx1E8-fu6bkx-aExRJh-dPq6PW-7JezgR-aExSow-arFt71-arCNVT-arFtab-9dyLTU-81igf7-9dvGZP-aJpwfT-arCNUn-7JiuEN-9dyM1q-7NJ9Yj-7NE9ki-9dyLZf-7NJ9JE-8b51aV-7NMpDy-7NMp1A">Flickr/Blake Patterson</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Anyone who spends much time online knows the saying: “If you’re not paying, you’re the product”. That’s not exactly correct. </p>
<p>On the internet, you’re nearly always the product. And while most internet users know that some of their personal data is being collected and monetised, few are aware of the sheer scale of the issue, particularly when it comes to apps.</p>
<p>In fact, <a href="http://www.privmetrics.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/wisec2015.pdf">our research</a> suggests a majority of the top 100 paid and free Google Play apps in Australia, Brazil, Germany and the US contain at least one tracker. This means data could be collected for advertising networks as well as for payment providers.</p>
<p>This is just the beginning. As voice-activated intelligent assistants like Siri or Google Now evolve and replace the need for apps on our smartphones, the question of what is being done with our data will only grow more complicated.</p>
<h2>Nothing is free</h2>
<p>The difference between what apps actually do with user data and what users expect them to do was apparent in the recent Unroll.Me scandal.</p>
<p>Unroll.me is a free online service that cleans email inboxes by unsubscribing the user from unnecessary emails. But many were dismayed when the company was <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/24/technology/personal-data-firm-slice-unroll-me-backlash-uber.html?_r=0">recently discovered</a> to be monetising their mail content. For example, UnRoll.me was reportedly looking for receipts of the ridesharing company Lyft in user emails and selling that information to Uber. </p>
<p><a href="http://blog.unroll.me/we-can-do-better/">Unroll.me’s CEO apologised</a>, saying the company needed to do a better job of disclosing its use of data. But who is in the wrong? Consumers for thinking they were getting a service for free? Or the service provider, who should inform customers of what they’re collecting?</p>
<p>The question is even more intriguing when it comes to mobile apps.</p>
<p>In fact, compared to online services that usually access a few facets of a user’s personal profile, mobile apps can conveniently tap into a range of personal data such as location, message content, browser history and app installation logs.</p>
<p>They do this using third-party libraries embedded in their code, and these libraries can be very intrusive.</p>
<h2>How libraries work</h2>
<p>Libraries are third-party trackers used by app developers so they can integrate their products with external services. These may include advertising networks, social media platforms and payment gateways such as Paypal, as well as tools for tracking bugs and crashes.</p>
<p>In <a href="http://www.privmetrics.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/wisec2015.pdf">our study</a>, carried out in 2015, we analysed tracking libraries in the top-100 free and top-100 paid apps in in Australia, Brazil, Germany and the US, revealing some concerning results. </p>
<p>Approximately 90% of the top free apps and 60% of the top paid apps in Google Play Store had at least one embedded tracker. </p>
<p>For both free and paid apps in the study, <a href="https://developers.google.com/ads/">Google Ads</a> and <a href="https://y.flurry.com/metrics/1">Flurry</a> were the two most popular trackers and were integrated with more than 25% of the apps. Other frequently observed libraries include <a href="https://www.chartboost.com">Chartboost</a>, <a href="http://www.millennialmedia.com">Millennial Media</a>, <a href="https://www.google.com/analytics/analytics/features/">Google Analytics</a> and <a href="http://home.tapjoy.com">Tapjoy</a>. The top trackers were also likely to be present in more than one app, meaning these libraries receive a rich dataset about the user.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168288/original/file-20170508-14369-11herwk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168288/original/file-20170508-14369-11herwk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=235&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168288/original/file-20170508-14369-11herwk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=235&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168288/original/file-20170508-14369-11herwk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=235&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168288/original/file-20170508-14369-11herwk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=295&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168288/original/file-20170508-14369-11herwk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=295&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168288/original/file-20170508-14369-11herwk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=295&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A summary of the study of top-100 free and paid apps in Google Play Store.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.privmetrics.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/wisec2015.pdf">NICTA</a>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Of course, these numbers could have changed in the two years since our research was published, although recent <a href="http://sharcs-project.eu/m/filer_public/91/b3/91b327e6-1472-45e3-b0bc-ca20bdb0fe75/mobile_websites_vs_mobile_apps_-_www2017.pdf">studies</a> suggest the trend has largely continued.</p>
<p>It’s also possible these libraries are present without collecting data, but it’s nonetheless disturbing to see the presence of so many trackers in paid apps that have an alternative business model.</p>
<h2>What lies ahead?</h2>
<p>So what can you do if you don’t want to be tracked? </p>
<ul>
<li>Use your judgement when giving apps permission to access your data by first asking questions such as, “does this game really need to know my phone number?” </li>
<li>Consider using mobile anti-virus and privacy advisory apps such as <a href="https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.lookout">Lookout Security & Antivirus</a>, <a href="https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.avast.android.mobilesecurity">Mobile Security and Antivirus</a>, and <a href="https://play.google.com/apps/testing/com.nicta.privmetrics">PrivMetrics</a> (this app is a beta release by Data61). </li>
</ul>
<p>Ultimately, however, these solutions barely touch the surface of a much larger issue.</p>
<p>In the near future, apps may be replaced by built-in services that come with a smartphone’s operating system. The intelligent personal assistant by Google, <a href="http://www.androidcentral.com/google-now">Google Now</a>, for example, could eliminate the need for individual transport, messenger, news and weather apps, as well as some financial apps.</p>
<p>These services, otherwise known as aggregator platform services, could build extensive profiles that cover several aspects of our online and offline behaviour. When used, they have access to an incredibly broad range of our activities, not to mention our location.</p>
<p>Still, app users have so far been willing to exchange their data for convenience. There’s little reason to believe that trend will not continue.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/77235/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Name almost any app. Your data is probably being tracked.Suranga Seneviratne, Research Scientist, Data61Dali Kaafar, Group Leader, Networks Group. CyberPhysical Systems Research Program, Data61Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/583012016-04-29T09:45:32Z2016-04-29T09:45:32ZWhat is the European Commission’s problem with Google and Android?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/120663/original/image-20160429-10512-dc41xi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Yeamake/Shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Google has been dragged over the coals by the European Union’s competition watchdog, culminating in the European Commission <a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm">formally charging Google with abusing the dominant position</a> of its Android mobile phone operating system, having launched an investigation in April 2015.</p>
<p>Powerful firms are prohibited from engaging in anti-competitive behaviour under <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:12008E102">Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union</a>, or TFEU. European law calls this an abuse of dominant position, but really it can be seen simply as <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2163690">bullying</a>. The EU courts have long recognised that dominant firms have “<a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A61981CJ0322">a special responsibility not to allow [their] conduct to impair genuine undistorted competition</a>”. </p>
<p>To violate EU competition law a firm must be dominant in a particular market – just having a large market share indicates dominance, but isn’t sufficient. Other factors need to be studied, such as barriers to market entry and exit, or switching costs. A market that is easy to enter despite one firm having a large share of it may still be contestable by newcomers.</p>
<p>The conduct of firms with dominant positions is subject to particular scrutiny for evidence of abusive conduct, such as that aimed at eliminating actual or potential competitors or exploiting consumers. If any abusive behaviour is found, the European Commission has the power to demand changes to contracts and impose fines of up to 10% of the firm’s annual turnover. In the case of Google, this would be an eye-watering US$7 billion, based on its <a href="http://www.androidcentral.com/google-releases-q4-and-full-2015-earnings">2015 revenues</a>. Any such sanctions are subject to review by the EU courts.</p>
<h2>What are the allegations?</h2>
<p>The European Commission considers that Google is dominant in three markets: general internet search, licensable mobile operating systems as used on smartphones and tablet computers, and stores for Android apps. It considers that Google controls more than 90% of each market. </p>
<p>It’s important to understand that Android is essentially composed of two parts. The first is the open source operating system core, which everyone can use, alter, change, repackage and re-release as their own. The other is proprietary, which is closed source and belongs to Google, which keeps it to itself. This means that a firm manufacturing mobile phones must buy a licence from Google to use the proprietary part of Android, even though the rest of it is open source and free.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/120601/original/image-20160428-28029-pg1k4m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/120601/original/image-20160428-28029-pg1k4m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/120601/original/image-20160428-28029-pg1k4m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/120601/original/image-20160428-28029-pg1k4m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/120601/original/image-20160428-28029-pg1k4m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/120601/original/image-20160428-28029-pg1k4m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/120601/original/image-20160428-28029-pg1k4m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/120601/original/image-20160428-28029-pg1k4m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">How the European Commission sees Google’s anticompetitive behaviour.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">European Commission</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Google, the commission argues, violated EU rules by requiring manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and its Chrome browser and obliging them to make Google Search a default search service as a condition of being granted a license for Google’s proprietary apps, particularly the Play Store app which is the key marketplace for Android-compatible apps. </p>
<p>Google also prevents manufacturers from selling devices running on any non-standard variations of the Android operating system (known as “forks”) – and offers financial incentives to manufacturers and mobile phone networks if they exclusively pre-install Google Search on their devices.</p>
<p>This behaviour has an essentially foreclosing effect – it makes it difficult for other firms to compete with Google, and reinforces Google’s dominance in general search – its most profitable business area. It may also harm consumers by denying them access to devices run on competing Android forks, thereby stifling innovation. </p>
<h2>Is Google the new Microsoft (legally speaking)?</h2>
<p>These are serious charges. They resemble <a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-04-382_en.htm">similar anti-competitive charges brought against Microsoft</a> 20 years ago for bundling a media player and web browser with its Windows operating system. One difference lies in the fact that Microsoft built its products into each other, technologically, whereas Google bound them together contractually. </p>
<p>However, manufacturers can use the open source Android, but they cannot pre-install the proprietary Google apps, including the Play Store, which as the main Android app marketplace is seen as critical. There are other app stores available for Android, for example <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/feature.html?docId=1000644603">Amazon Appstore</a>, but none has a comparable library of apps. What’s more, Google’s approach is all-or-nothing: installing the Play Store means installing all the other Google apps in the bundle, such as Google Search, the Chrome browser, or Gmail app. The effect is that Google’s own apps are given unparalleled presence and visibility, leveraging and strengthening Google’s dominant position. </p>
<p>In its <a href="http://googlepolicyeurope.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/androids-model-of-open-innovation.html">first response</a>, Google underlined the voluntary character of the agreements and the open source nature of Android. It argued that Android was designed “in a way that’s good for competition and for consumers”. </p>
<p>Google has 12 weeks to formally respond and show that any such restrictions are legitimate. <a href="http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/04/26/europes-misguided-anti-google-crusade/">Some</a>, particularly in the US, argue that the European Commission is obsessed with scrutinising US tech firms. But the US Federal Trade Commission <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-antitrust-idUSKCN0RP0WR20150925">recently opened a similar investigation</a>, so it is not, as some have suggested, anti-US sentiment. But with <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2242085">differences between EU and US law</a>, where US law tends to be more lenient with larger firms, it’s not clear that the two bodies will come to the same conclusions.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/58301/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marek Martyniszyn does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>European Commission fires a broadside at Google for using Android to enforce its dominant position.Marek Martyniszyn, Lecturer in Law, Queen's University BelfastLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/583212016-04-22T21:56:57Z2016-04-22T21:56:57ZWhy it’s tough to find Prince’s songs online – and other musicians are thankful<p>Legendary music icon Prince Rogers Nelson <a href="http://www.startribune.com/jon-bream-prince-was-a-once-in-a-generation-artist-who-never-rested-on-his-laurels/376594221/">died unexpectedly</a> on April 21, 2016, sending shock waves through the lives of many music lovers. With a career spanning nearly 40 years and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_albums_discography">even more albums</a>, Prince was one of the most prolific musicians of this generation.</p>
<p>Naturally, as Prince fans process his death, they will also search for his music online to purchase and play while they mourn the loss of a music titan. But most of these searches <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/21/why-you-can-t-listen-to-prince-s-music-after-his-death.html">will be futile</a> because American law provides strict protections to copyright owners, and Prince was a pioneering advocate when it came to asserting copyright protections for his creative works.</p>
<p>As an intellectual property and entertainment law professor (and avid Prince fan), I believe Prince’s legacy as a musician must include the mark he made on the American copyright law landscape. </p>
<h2>Songs as intellectual property</h2>
<p>Prince was fiercely protective of his music and rejected most online dissemination of his copyright-protected work. </p>
<p>Copyright law is meant to <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1674246">protect original, tangible works</a> like music and videos. It gives the original creators the right to copy, distribute and remix that work. And it prohibits others from doing any of these things without the creator’s permission.</p>
<p>Prince famously feuded with Warner Bros. Records over ownership of his music because his early contracts signed over much of his music’s ownership rights to the record company. After a <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/prince-fought-big-labels-ownership-artistic-control-n560161">nearly 25-year feud</a>, which included a name change and regular uses of the word “slave” to describe his perceived role in the relationship, Prince received ownership of his catalog back from the company and the legal rights stemming from that ownership. </p>
<p>And Prince wasn’t shy about asserting his rights against others online. He felt that <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/you-cant-find-prince-songs-7809292">only large corporations</a> such as Apple and Google, and not artists, made money from online music sales. He battled with YouTube in 2007, which resulted in more than 2,000 videos being <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/prince-sues-internet-sites-for-breaching-his-copyright-402336.html">removed from the website</a>.</p>
<p>Beyond his business beef with the online side of the music industry, Prince had artistic aversions to some of the technology as well. He often expressed a view that digitization negatively affected music, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/music/2011/jun/23/prince-interview-adele-internet">stating in one interview</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I personally can’t stand digital music… You’re getting sound in bits. It affects a different place in your brain. When you play it back, you can’t feel anything. We’re analogue people, not digital.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Such views even led Prince to file a <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2014/01/why-prince-is-suing-his-fans/">short-lived lawsuit</a> against 22 fans who posted links to bootlegged copies of his music on Facebook. He was, by all accounts, staunchly opposed to online uses that he felt marred his work. </p>
<p>So, you won’t find most of Prince’s catalog on popular services Apple Music, Google Play, Spotify or the like as you seek to reminisce over your favorite Prince tracks. Subscribers to rapper and businessman <a href="http://www.wired.com/2015/03/jay-z-tidal-streaming-service/">Jay Z’s streaming service</a> <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/jul/02/prince-pulls-music-from-all-streaming-services-except-tidal">Tidal</a>, however, <a href="http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/prince-songs-streaming-links-youtube">can stream everything</a> from 1984’s iconic Purple Rain album through to HITNRUN Phase Two, an album released in December of last year. In 2015, Tidal <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/jul/02/prince-pulls-music-from-all-streaming-services-except-tidal">was spared</a> Prince’s treatment of every other streaming platform, apparently because he felt it had a friendlier model for artists that gave him <a href="http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11481888/prince-streaming-tidal-spotify">much more control</a> over his music and paid better. </p>
<h2>Signing away copyright to score a deal</h2>
<p>Control over music, based on copyright ownership, is a huge part of the entertainment industry. And the deck is stacked against new artists seeking a traditional record deal. A record label holds all of the cards: money, access to production, manufacturing, distribution and marketing channels, and legal expertise.</p>
<p>If an artist wants to sign with the label, he typically enters into <a href="http://www.academia.edu/533323/The_evolving_relationship_of_record_label_and_artist">notoriously one-sided contracts</a> which sign away all of his rights and control over the music he ultimately creates. It has happened to the best of them, from the <a href="http://musewire.com/deconstructing-pop-culture-the-beatles-contract-history-with-capitol-records-1665/">Beatles</a> to <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmessitte/2015/04/30/five-truly-terrible-record-deals-compiled-for-your-convenience/#7bdcc6794919">TLC and Michael Jackson</a> to Prince himself.</p>
<p>Congress had the potential for exploitation in mind when it updated the copyright law in 1976 to include something called <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/docs/203.html">termination rights</a>. Now <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html#203">Section 203 of the Copyright Act</a> allows artists to terminate contracts made after January 1, 1978 if <a href="http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2091&context=facpubs">certain requirements</a> are met after 35 years. </p>
<p>These rights recognize that an artist has almost no bargaining power at the outset of his or her career and also that the value of a piece of music is hard to predict before it is created. Artists who successfully assert their termination rights will no longer be limited to the bad deal they signed before they achieved fame and commercial success. They can either buy back the rights to the music 100 percent to take advantage of new opportunities and technologies, or negotiate a much better deal based on past successes.</p>
<p>Termination rights formed the basis for Prince’s legendary reclamation of his music catalog. Other artists, including <a href="http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/7263857/paul-mccartney-beatles-songs-publishing">Paul McCartney</a> and <a href="http://allaxess.com/news/ownership-rights-of-%E2%80%98eye-of-the-tiger%E2%80%99-in-dispute/">Survivor</a>, have also used the law to regain ownership of their own music.</p>
<h2>Musicians wresting back control</h2>
<p>Newer artists have learned from the mistakes of these pioneering legends. </p>
<p>Prince often encouraged younger artists to <a href="http://www.inquisitr.com/2321515/prince-compares-music-industrys-record-contracts-to-slavery-gives-warning-to-younger-artists/">resist the Draconian restrictions</a> set up by record labels, and many took heed. For example, Macklemore and Ryan Lewis famously won four Grammys in 2014, including the highly coveted best rap album award, for “The Heist,” which was made <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2014/01/28/how-macklemore-tapped-major-label-muscle-to-market-an-indie-album/">without traditional record label support</a>. </p>
<p>Other artists have taken a page from Prince’s songbook and openly criticized and shunned traditional music-streaming services. Taylor Swift <a href="http://taylorswift.tumblr.com/post/122071902085/to-apple-love-taylor">wrote a letter to Apple</a> explaining she would hold back her blockbuster “1989” album because Apple Music would not pay artists during an initial three month trial of the new music-streaming service. In addition, Swift and others, including Adele, David Byrne and The Black Keys, do not allow their music to be <a href="http://www.fastcompany.com/3054479/can-spotify-lure-back-taylor-swift-and-adele">streamed on Spotify</a> based on what they perceive to be an unfair revenue model for artists.</p>
<p>These efforts have, in many ways, shifted the music industry in a different direction. The success of Macklemore and Ryan Lewis encouraged artists to remain independent and grow success online organically. <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/music/2015/06/22/taylor-swift-apple-music/29094853/">Apple responded</a> to Swift’s letter by quickly announcing it would pay artists during the trial period, and thousands of independent artists then allowed Apple Music to stream their music after initial staunch resistance. Though Tidal <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/hughmcintyre/2015/09/10/great-business-model-or-not-tidals-sheer-number-of-exclusives-is-impressive/#319fb3d12c19">has had its challenges</a>, it has garnered an impressive <a href="http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/tidal-one-year-has-jay-zs-music-streaming-service-been-success-failure-1552082">2.5 million subscribers</a> since Jay Z’s purchase and relaunch in 2015. Prince’s early efforts, while often viewed as restrictive and resistant, have encouraged today’s artists to recognize and protect the value of their work. </p>
<p>Even though fans will jump through some hoops in the short term to find Prince’s work online, his legacy of artist vigilance will continue to influence the music industry for years to come.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/58321/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Shontavia Johnson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Gifted musician, peerless showman – and fierce protector of his copyrighted work. Prince fought battles that changed the direction of the music industry and are helping the next generation of artists.Shontavia Johnson, Associate Professor of Intellectual Property Law, Drake UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.